HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 28937 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Anay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel, and Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel appearing for Prayagraj Development Authority (for short, "PDA"). 2. While entertaining the writ petition on 9 January 2026, this Court had directed the respondents to furnish detailed instructions. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 9 January 2026 is reproduced below: "1. Heard Sri Anay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Singh and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels for the State respondents and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel representing Development Authority. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the following relief :- "(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order/notice no. Nil (undated) issued by respondent no. 5 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) ; (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to reconstruct the boundary illegally demolished by the respondent no.3 and other officials of the respondent no. 1 and to also compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2.0 lacs along with interest till the date of actual payment and also to take the strict action Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anay Kumar Srivastava, Ravi Prakash Mishra, Samir Srivastava, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Saurabh Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhu Rai Chunni Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) against the respondent No. 3 and other officials accompanying the respondent no. 3 when the illegal demolition of the boundary wall of the petitioner's house has taken place on 22.03.2025;" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government had floated a scheme known as "Manyawar Shri Kashi Ramji Shahri Ghareeb Awas Yojna" vide Government Order dated 04.12.2009. The petitioner being an old and infirm widow lady, who falls under the SC/ST category, was allotted small housing dwelling unit having Flat No. 30/14, IIIrd Floor, Mohalla Devghat Avas Yojna, Tehsil Sadar, District - Allahabad (now Prayagraj) on 04.11.2011. Now by means of the notice, the petitioner is being evicted from the allotted house. 4. We have perused the documents available on record and before we proceed further in the matter, let the entire scheme and object be placed before this Court on the next date fixed. 5. Put up this matter again as fresh on 28.01.2026." 3. In pith and substance, it is contended that the PDA, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the instant proceedings, has served the impugned notice upon her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, belonging to the weaker section of society, was allotted a small dwelling unit bearing Flat No. 30/14, IIIrd Floor, Mohalla Devghat Awas Yojna, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj on 29.11.2011 under the scheme floated by the State Government known as "Manyawar Shri Kanshiram Ji Shahri Garib Awas Yojna" vide Government Order dated 04.12.2009. It is further submitted that on account of her ailment, the petitioner was not residing in the said dwelling unit at the relevant point of time, and during the alleged survey it was incorrectly presumed that the petitioner had created third-party rights over the disputed property. The entire action of the respondents is per se arbitrary, unsustainable in the eye of law, and violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions, submits that the object of the scheme is to provide shelter/small dwelling units only to persons belonging to the weaker sections of society. He further submits that the scheme does not permit creation of third-party interest in the allotted dwelling unit. Upon a survey being conducted, it was found that the WRIC No. 28937 of 2025 2 petitioner was not residing in the allotted premises and, consequently, the impugned notice came to be issued. However, learned Standing Counsel submits that in case the petitioner submits detailed objections before respondent No. 2, Secretary, PDA, the same shall be duly considered and a final order shall be passed in accordance with law. 6. Having considered the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was allotted a small dwelling unit under the scheme known as "Manyawar Shri Kanshiram Ji Shahri Garib Awas Yojna". It further appears that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was not residing in the allotted flat as she was undergoing treatment for her ailment elsewhere, and consequently the impugned notice came to be issued. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by providing that, in case the petitioner prefers detailed objections within two weeks from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till disposal of the said objections, the parties shall maintain status quo as on date. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. May 14, 2026 Mukesh Kr. WRIC No. 28937 of 2025 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad